[FridayoLeary]

That is certainly a perspective i didn't consider. It's been a long time since i last read the books. But i don't agree with you that that's all there is to Wonka.

>Wonka was never gratified or pleased when someone got hurt

No, but the author clearly intended that the readers should be.

>A sadistic and cruel business owner would not have hundreds of healthy Oompa-Loompas

Were they compensated for their efforts? Slave labour. (please don't be offended, it's a joke)

>or a worthy successor who was happy to take over the business after the glass elevator ride.

What of it? Everyone needs a successor. Otherwise when he gets old and infirm, the oompah loompahs and the squirrels will rise up against him and throw him down the garbage chute into the incinerator. Although he did discover immortality so that shouldn't even be a problem.

>Tell me, if a group of five innocent children and parents toured a real-world modern manufacturing plant or data center, what sort of Trade Secrets would they steal when they were dismissed at the end of a long day?

The article quotes Wonka where he asserts that his rivals would give their front teeth to be part of the tour, so he certainly thought that there were secrets to be stolen.

[AStonesThrow]

> No, but the author clearly intended that the readers should be.

Damn straight, and as a demonstration of moral ethics for an audience of young children, Dahl exploits our instincts to be thrilled/pleased when someone who's really bad gets exactly what they deserve.

Key factors in each character's demise is that they didn't die -- they weren't really maimed, injured, or in pain, per se, and we were always left with hope in their recovery.

But they all "got their just desserts" in a literal way. Their character sketches were thoroughly drawn as corrupt, indecent, egged on by bad parents, destined for Hell essentially. So yeah, the audience is gleeful and cheers and we revel in this cartoon violence, and we experience it completely differently from Wonka's attitude [hopefully], and when we compare ourselves to the folks on the page, we get to know ourselves better.

[rightbyte]

The punnishment is not in any way proportional to their misdeeds though. I remember noting that as a kid.

The other children seems like projections of type of people the author didn't like or something. They were given no chance of redemption but tempted by their weaknesses.

[AStonesThrow]

I'm unsure what a "proportional punishment" would look like, in context of a cartoon character suffering a cartoon fate in a cartoon factory.

Sure, the author didn't like the kids. They were wholly unsympathetic. Wonka didn't like them, either -- he waited until the very end to show partiality even to Charlie. The audience isn't expected to like them.

Projections, perhaps, but I would say we're looking at archetypes. Each child represented a particular type of moral excess -- gluttony, avarice, selfish intemperance of some kind. I'm saying they got "just desserts" because their fates aligned with those excesses. Augustus just gets immersed in the chocolate he coveted so much. Violet's impatience manifests itself physically as she became what she desired. Mike basically gets to be on TV for good in a miniature size. And Veruca, oh daddy's rich, haughty darling Veruca, is justly judged to be a "bad egg" on the very scales that measured wealth.

And Charlie managed to navigate the moral hazards and prove his mettle and take that hero's journey that purified him of minor faults. The point of the factory tour was not redemption, but a winnowing. The children had been led to the threshing floor and collectively given a final chance at redemption. Four of them individually failed, but Charlie, as an archetype, represents the redemption of all righteous dudes.

But Charlie had a destiny and didn't need to overcome the deadly sins of the other kids. His humble home was filled with righteous family members who encouraged his goodness. They prepared him to face evil influence when he went out into the world. All the other parents just egged on their stupid children's behavior on the tour. Charlie's weaknesses became his strength and salvation. Charlie's grandfather was a kindly mentor who saw he's good and refused to lead him astray. The other four families weren't merely weak, but thoroughly corrupt and blind to their own sins. They were already destined for perdition before they purchased their first chocolate bar.

So I don't know how you perceive proportionality, but I agree with the commenter upthread -- all seemed to get precisely what they deserved.

[rightbyte]

"Proportional punishment" would be falling into the chocolate and getting wet and going home or turning temporarely blue instead of becoming a ball. So ye, a boring book.

It is not really the severity of the punishments maybe but in what way Wonka delivers them from his position of strength. He is kicking downwards and you are supposed to applaud him.

Sure you can always go with fairy tail logic in wich turning someone into a miniature for being cheeky is not some sort of torture. (I am not sarcastic here).

I also find the story's way of portraying capitalists somewhat strange. The class struggle is just implicit.

[WalterBright]

> his rivals would give their front teeth to be part of the tour, so he certainly thought that there were secrets to be stolen.

But it doesn't mean that those secrets would be discoverable via the tour.

[IAmBroom]

> >A sadistic and cruel business owner would not have hundreds of healthy Oompa-Loompas

> Were they compensated for their efforts? Slave labour. (please don't be offended, it's a joke)

In at least one of the movies, Wonka reveals that he saved the entire race of Oompa-Loompas from some sort of ecological disaster, giving them a new home, and jobs.

Personally, I don't recall any of them seeming to resent their work, peeing in a bottle, or being sniped at in performance reviews. Reasonable labor for reasonable compensation is quite fulfilling (although that sentiment is often twisted sadistically by those in power into a caricature of 'reasonable').